'함양과 체찰-조선의 지성 퇴계 이황의 마음공부법'은 퇴계의 생애와 사상을 핵심적으로 요약한 뒤에 '자성록'을 뼈대로 퇴계의 가르침을 재구성하고 있다. 또한 ‘활인심방’과 ‘수신십훈’ 등 퇴계 이황의 행동적 가르침을 첨가해 그의 삶과 철학을 소개한다. ‘함양과 체찰’은 지폐속에 박제화된 퇴계를 생생하게 되살리고, 난해하게 인식되는 그의 이론을 현대인이 소화하기 쉽게 풀어 쓰고 있다. '함양과 체찰'을 통해 현대의 한국인들은 퇴계의 지혜를 부담 없이 접할 수 있을 뿐만아니라, ‘공부하는 인간, 퇴계’라는 측면에서 퇴계의 생애와 철학을 명료하게 재구성하고 있어서 학자로써의 퇴계와 인간 퇴계의 일면도 재미있게 엿볼 수 있다.

1. Sŏngnihak ŭi hwakchang kwa simhwa -- 2. Sŏngnihak ŭi pip'anjŏk sŏngch'al.

The book entitled the Huang Ti nei ching [Canonical Works of Huang Ti] has two sections - the "Su Wen" section and the "Ling Shu" section - and each section contains eighty-one articles. It was written by several authors in different historical periods. According to historical records and scholars' studies of the content and context of the book, we can roughly say that it was written in the period between the late years of the Warring States era and the early (...) years of the Eastern Han dynasty. Seven articles in the "Su Wen" section were materials from an "older version" and were merged into the book by Wang Fing in the Tang dynasty. They were probably written by scholars in the Eastern Han period or a little later. The two articles on acupuncture and pathology have been proved forgeries made in the Tang-Sung period. They should not have been included in the book because they contain more idealist dregs than do the other articles. (shrink)

1-2. Hyojado -- 3. Ch'ungsindo -- 4-5. Yŏllyŏdo.

One of the important ways for us to raise our level of philosophical research is to study and summarize the history of natural science. Lenin pointed out that the whole history of thought, including the history of each branch of natural science, is "a realm of knowledge which should establish cognitive theory and dialectics." In indicating philosophical research tasks, Lenin further wrote: "If we want to carry on the enterprises of Hegel and Marx, we should dialectically study the history of (...) man's thought, science, and technology.". (shrink)

Investigating the methods of natural science research is one of the important topics of the dialectics of nature.

Having read the works of Wang Ch'ung [A.D. 27-c. 100], I realized that they need to be recapitulated. Here I shall evaluate Wang Ch'ung and his thought and present what I feel to be the real significance that Wang Ch'ung's thought still has today.

In ancient times in our country, Wang Ch'ung was an eminent materialist and a brilliant atheist, a progressive thinker who opposed the orthodox feudal thought. This has gone basically unquestioned. This year the February 21 issue of Kuang-ming jih-pao printed in its philosophy section an article by Comrade T'ung Mo-an, "Is Wang Ch'ung a Peasant Class Thinker?" The article is an evaluation completely denying this. T'ung believes that the purpose of Wang Ch'ung's works was "to uphold the rule of the (...) Han," "ardently and unconditionally to sing the praises of the Han ruler and court," "to make sacred the rule of the Han," "to get the populace to live quietly, forever in a servile position," and "to view inimically and to slander peasant uprisings." "Wang Ch'ung was an orthodox thinker of the landlord class," "a thinker produced in the interests of the rule of the landlord class who confirmed the feudal orthodoxy." Although I myself am not praising Wang Ch'ung as a peasant class thinker or denying that in Wang Ch'ung's thought there are negative elements, I am completely unable to agree with the basic viewpoint that the author puts forward. (shrink)